|
Recently on these pages, I predicted that within five years the United States would negotiate an agreement with Mexico allowing the temporary immigration of agricultural workers. Well, I was wrong.
The prediction was based on observations of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service activities:
- For the better part of two years, INS has increased a crackdown on employers known to unlawfully hire undocumented workers in industries other than agriculture.
- The INS increasingly makes concessions to agricultural concerns allowing them to keep their workers without fear of INS raids or reprisals.
Two examples: In Phoenix, a fast food chain was fined $2 million for employing around 200 undocumented workers. In Georgia, the INS agreed to the demands of local growers to desist raiding their fields until after the harvest season. These activities are mirrored throughout the country.
Agriculture's need for migrant foreign workers remains a dilemma to our elected representatives in Congress. To win elections, they've found it necessary to be seen as opposed to illegal immigration, calling for severe crackdowns at the border, building fences, lighting the border and posting military guards, while accepting major financial contributions from agricultural entities that are the major employers of illegal immigrants.
The "farm" or "agricultural" words, describing the work for which this country needs several hundred thousand workers, do no justice to the actual job description.
American workers are used to receiving time-and-a-half pay for overtime work, typically anything over eight hours a day. Agricultural workers are exempt from this law. For them, federal law calls for overtime pay after 80 hours a week. That's the equivalent of six 12-hour days and an eight-hour Sunday. Magnanimously in California, overtime starts after 60 hours. Because the work is temporary in nature, the jobs rarely include health benefits, paid sick days, paid holidays, vacations, 401ks or other benefits commonly extended to the rest of the workforce. Worst of all, the pay is lousy.
Those alone are sufficient reasons why Americans, even those on welfare, shun agricultural fieldwork. Add to this working under scorching sun, bent over picking strawberries, tomatoes, grapes, or other fruits from vines, or climbing ladders to pick fruits from trees. It is not difficult to understand why only the very desperate accept work under such conditions.
But politicians have aroused public sentiment against those very desperate people willing to supply our fruits and veggies. Voters want illegal immigration stopped, and stopped now. Politicians know they went too far: What would happen if those workers were stopped from crossing the border? Who would step in and take over?
Congress, behind closed doors, already is discussing providing amnesty to agricultural workers illegally working in the United States. Amnesty would be granted provided workers would continue to work in the fields for five years, at which time they would be eligible to receive permanent residency status.
So I was wrong. I assumed past mistakes would not be repeated.
The problem is that Congress is trying to serve two masters: agricultural political contributors and U.S. taxpayers. And just as the 1996 immigration reform act proved a loser for taxpayers, I expect the same from what Congress is now privately considering.
Were the U.S. and Mexico to enter into an agreement that would allow temporary immigration in an orderly and predetermined method, Mexico would surely, as it did during the Bracero program, have agreement clauses guaranteeing sanitary living conditions, health benefits, and safe transportation and working conditions.
These would be cost factors to the agricultural sectors, the underlying reason the Bracero program was canceled in 1963. It becomes cheaper not to have an agreement. Instead, agriculture will pressure Congress to grant immediate amnesty to those already here, followed by the permanent residency in five years. Talk about inviting a surge of new illegal immigration crossings, and a rash of deaths among those doing so.
And what happens in five years when they're given permanent residency? What else can they do? Will they speak English? Will they need social assistance? What about their families? Will they also qualify for amnesty and future legal residency?
What’s wrong with making a straightforward business deal? People need jobs; this country has temporary jobs available. Work out a deal, that is fair to taxpayers, employers and workers. Exempt contracted workers from paying U.S. and state income taxes, and contributions to such programs as Social Security, for which they would not be eligible. Instead, have contributions on their behalf made to Mexico's Social security, which provides health benefits to workers' families and workers' retirement in Mexico.
Workers would return to Mexico on completion of the contract period. Those not returning would lose eligibility for future contracts. Growers would agree to allow INS field inspections for visa compliance, and to labor board inspectors for work, living and contract compliance.
Obviously it’s more complicated, but doable. It hinges on Congress deciding which master it will serve: monied special interests or taxpayers. I sure don’t like our odds.
Patrick Osio Jr. can be reached through the Metropolitan or by e-mail at posiojr@aol.com
|
